Publication number | US5574638 A |

Publication type | Grant |

Application number | US 08/415,882 |

Publication date | Nov 12, 1996 |

Filing date | Apr 3, 1995 |

Priority date | Apr 3, 1995 |

Fee status | Paid |

Also published as | CN1138191C, CN1179839A, DE69608887D1, DE69608887T2, EP0819271A1, EP0819271B1, WO1996031811A1 |

Publication number | 08415882, 415882, US 5574638 A, US 5574638A, US-A-5574638, US5574638 A, US5574638A |

Inventors | Zhuxin J. Lu |

Original Assignee | Lu; Zhuxin J. |

Export Citation | BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan |

Patent Citations (2), Referenced by (72), Classifications (7), Legal Events (4) | |

External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet | |

US 5574638 A

Abstract

A process control system which includes at least one manipulated variable and at least one controlled variable, provides a method for robust control of a process. Predetermined constraints of the manipulated variables and the controlled variables, and the present values of the manipulated variables are obtained. A set of scale factors for the manipulated variables and the process variables are calculated. The controller is initialized with the set of scale factors, the scale factors determining the relative importance of the manipulated variables and the process variables to the process. New values are calculated for the controlled variables for a predetermined number of points in the future, such that the values of the controlled variables are within the predetermined range thereby obtaining an optimal robustness of the resultant controller. The manipulated variables are also calculated to be within predetermined constraints, and the controlled variables to fall within a predetermined range when controllable. From a plurality of solutions, a most robust solution is selected. Then the manipulated variables are adjusted to cause the process control system to drive the values of the controlled variables to the calculated values.

Claims(4)

1. In a process control system having a controller for providing robust control to a process, the process further having at least one manipulated variable and at least one process variable, a method for providing the robust control of a process, comprising the steps of:

a) calculating a set of scale factors for the manipulated variables and the process variables;

b) initializing the controller with the set of scale factors, the set of scale factors determining a relative importance to the process of the manipulated variables and the process variables;

c) initializing the robust control to have predetermined constraints of the manipulated variables and the controlled variables;

d) obtaining present values of the manipulated variables and the process variables said process variables corresponding to measurement parameters of the process;

e) calculating new values of the process variables for a predetermined number of points in the future in order to have the values of the process variables within the predetermined range to obtain an optimal robustness of the resultant controller, the manipulated variables being within predetermined constraints, and the process variables falling within a predetermined range when controllable; otherwise, keeping process variable constraint violations to a minimum;

f) from a plurality of solutions, selecting a most robust solution; and

g) controlling the process in accordance with the most robust solution.

2. A method according to claim 1 wherein the step of calculating a set of scale factors includes the steps of:

a) defining a diagonal matrix including row scaling matrix, a gain matrix of the controller, and a column scaling matrix;

b) from the row scaling matrix, determining a pre scaling factor;

c) from the column scaling matrix, determining a post scaling factor;

d) from the pre scaling factor and the post scaling factor, determining a condition number;

e) determining if the condition number is less than a predetermined tolerance level;

f) if the condition number is greater than the predetermined tolerance level, repeating step (b) thru step (e), otherwise continuing;

g) calculating the set of scale factors from the pre scale factors and the post scale factors calculated from each iteration for loading into the controller.

3. In a process control system, a method for providing robust control of a process according to claim 2, wherein the step of controlling comprises the steps of:

a) outputting the manipulated variables of the most robust solution of step (f) of claim 1 to the process; and

b) adjusting the process in response to the manipulated variables to cause the process control system to drive the values of the process variables to the calculated values of step (f) of claim 1, thereby providing the control of the process.

4. In a process control system, a method for providing robust control of a process according to claim 3, wherein the step of selecting comprises the step of:

a) determining a set of controlled variables which correspond to minimum controller magnitude.

Description

The present invention relates to control systems, and more particularly, to a method of determining the weight of the controlled and manipulated variables of a robust multivariable predictive controller (RMPC) utilizing range control.

In current systems, the controller (RMPC) has no idea of the importance of the controlled variables and manipulated variables, thus requiring the operator (or engineer) to "tell" the controller which is the most important variable, the second most important variable, . . . or if the variables are of equal importance. The user inputs the importance (or weight) of the variables as part of the initialization procedure of a robust multivariable predictive controller. The importance of the controlled variables (cv) or manipulated variables (mv) is a function of several factors, including the units utilized for the cvs and mvs. Engineers currently account for the units for the cvs and mvs and attach an importance to the high-low weights of the cvs and mvs.

Assume for example there are three controlled variables, cv1, cv2, and cv3, where cv1 is a temperature, cv2 is a pressure, and cv3 is a concentration variable of the process, all of course in different engineering units. In this instance one controlled variable can be more important to the controller than another controlled variable. If the pressure is in small engineering units (PSI) which can have a range up to 25,000 PSI, each unit of pressure change may not be as important as 1° of temperature change for the process. If the pressure, however, is in atmospheres, then one atmosphere change in pressure may be more significant then 1° of temperature change.

In the present invention, there is provided an optimal solution for an RMPC in the off-line that will determine in a relative sense how important each cv and mv is to the process. Thus, the operator does not have to be concerned with making the determination. The user can still override or fine-tune the solution output (i.e., the weight for the individual variables can be made more or less), however, the present invention provides the user with an excellent starting point for initializing the controller.

Thus by attaching a weight to the variables of the process, the impact to the system is reduced and results in a more robust controller.

Therefore, there is provided by the present invention a method of determining the weight of the controlled and manipulated variables of a robust multivariable predictive controller utilizing range control. There is provided by the present invention, a controller which controls each controlled variable of a process to be within a corresponding predetermined range. A process control system includes at least one manipulated variable and at least one controlled variable. A method which provides robust control of a process, comprises the steps of calculating a set of scale factors for the manipulated variables and the process variables. The controller is initialized with the set of scale factors, the scale factors determining the relative importance to the process of the manipulated variables and the process variables. The robust control is initialized to have predetermined constraints of the manipulated variables and the controlled variables. The present values of the manipulated variables and the controlled variables are then obtained. New values are calculated for the controlled variables for a predetermined number of points in the future, such that the values of the controlled variables are within the predetermined range thereby obtaining an optimal robustness of the resultant controller. The manipulated variables are also calculated to be within predetermined constraints, and the controlled variables to fall within a predetermined range when controllable; otherwise, to keep the controlled variable constraint violations to a minimum. From a plurality of solutions, a most robust solution is selected. Then the manipulated variables are adjusted to cause the process control system to drive the values of the controlled variables to the calculated values.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a method for determining the weight of the controlled and manipulated variable of a robust multivariable predictive controller utilizing range control.

This and other objects of the present invention will become more apparent when taken in conjunction with the following description and attached drawings, wherein like characters indicate like parts, and which drawings form a part of the present application.

FIG. 1 shows a functional block diagram of the process control system in which the present invention may be utilized; and

FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of determining a minimum condition number of the resulting diagonal matrix.

In a robust multivarible predictive controller (RMPC) utilizing range control of the present invention, there is devised an optimal solution in an off-line mode that will determine in the relative sense how important each controlled variable (cv) and each manipulated variable (my) is for the process. A detailed description of the RMPC utilizing range control can be had by reference to U.S. Pat. No. 5,351,184, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and is incorporated by reference herein to the extent necessary for an understanding of the present invention.

Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a functional block diagram of a process control system in which the present invention may be utilized. A controller 10 has multiple outputs, which are coupled as input variables u to a process 20. The process 20 can include, for example, a plurality of elements which can be controlled such as valves, heaters, . . . . Process variables y of process 20 include temperature, pressure, concentration, . . . which govern product quality. The input variables u (or manipulated variables my), are defined as: ##EQU1## and the output variables y (process variables pn or controlled variables cv), are defined as: ##EQU2##

Thus, in this example, the process 20 is a dynamic process P(s) having three (3) manipulated variables and three (3) controlled variables.

The process 20 is defined by G, where G (original model matrix) is: ##EQU3##

Thus, if cv_{1} is pressure, cv_{2} is temperature and cv_{3} is concentration carrying forth the example mentioned previously,

(pressure) cv_{1}=g_{11}·mv_{1}+g_{12}·mv_{2}+g_{13}·mv_{3}

(temperature) cv_{2}=g_{21}·mv_{1}+g_{22}·mv_{2}+g_{23}·mv_{3}

(concentration) cv_{3}=g_{31}·mv_{1}+g_{32}·mv_{2}+g_{33}·mv_{3}

As can be seen, pressure is affected by the three respective mvs (mv_{1}, mv_{2}, mv_{3}), . . . .

The values of g_{11}, g_{12}, g_{13}, . . . will vary as a function of the engineering units (or more simply units) selected for the controlled variables.

If cv_{2} is a linear measure in inches, and if for example purposes g_{21}, g_{22}, and g_{23} are 10, 12, 24, respectively, then:

cv_{2}(inch)=10·mv_{1}+12·mv_{2}24·mv_{3}

such that for every one unit (i.e., one inch) mv_{1} changes cv_{2} changes 10 inches, for every inch that mv_{2} changes cv_{2} changes 12 inches, and for every inch that mv_{3} changes cv_{2} changes 24 inches. If the units are in feet rather than inches then g_{21}, g_{22} and g_{23} are changed to 0.8, 1.0, and 2.0, respectively. But, the significance of cv_{2} has increased because for every unit change in cv_{2} corresponds to a one infect rather than inches change in cv_{2}. Thus in the overall control process it is undesirable to have cv_{2} deviating from the set point by one unit, as compared to when cv_{2} was expressed in inches.

Since the controller is not sensitized to units, the controller will try to correct a cv having a higher deviation from its desired position first. Thus, for example, if cv_{x} has a deviation of 2 and cv_{y} has a deviation of 1 from their respective desired positions, the controller will try to move cv_{x} to its desired position first since it has a higher number; the controller has no knowledge of units. However, a 2 unit deviation in cv_{x} can be less significant than a 1 unit deviation in cv_{y}. (For example, if cv_{x} is in millimeters and cv_{y} is in feet, cv_{x} is 2 millimeters apart versus cv_{y} which is 1 foot apart. In this case cv_{y} should be the parameter of concern.) Thus, there must exist a higher cv weight on cv_{y}. Similarly, the selection of units for mv must also be determined. The present invention determines a scaling factor which includes the units of cvs and mvs.

The method of finding "scaling factors" in accordance with the method of the present invention will now be described. A diagonal matrix is defined such that: ##EQU4##

DR determines the importance of each cv, and DC determines the importance of each mv. Then (using matrix algebra operations well known to those skilled in the art: ##EQU5##

Next, find a pre scale factor (row scale factor) and a post scale factor (column scale factor) such that the condition number of the resulting matrix [G(s) scaled matrix ] is minimized. The minimized condition number always gives optimal importance selecting (i.e., optimal scaling or optimal weighting).

The optimal scaling factors, DR and DC, are determined in accordance with the flow diagram of FIG. 2. In order to find a minimum condition number an iterative process is performed.

The process starts with t_{0} =∞ (where t_{o} =condition number of (G) =cond(G)) where G is: ##EQU6## DR is calculated (block 101) where: ##EQU7## DC is then calculated (block 105) where: ##EQU8##

The values of DR and DC are saved for each iteration.

Cond (G) is calculated (block 110) where:

G=(DR)^{r}·G·(DC)^{r}

The condition number of G is checked against the condition number of G of the previous iteration (block 115), and if it is less than a predetermined number, the process exits. If the difference is greater than the predetermined number ε, (tolerance level), the process repeats at block 101, and the condition number of the iteration just completed is saved (block 120). Note that the first time through the loop, the answer to block 115 is always NO. In a typical case, the number of iterations is about ten (10).

At the r^{th} iteration, when the process is exited

DR=DR.sup.(1) ·DR.sup.(2) ·. . . DR.sup.(r).

DC=DC.sup.(1) ·DC.sup.(2) ·. . . DC^{r}).

and

G(s)=DR·G·DC

The solutions obtained above off-line are then applied to the controller, and specifically to the RMPC controller of the predetermined embodiment. The scaled model data is loaded in the RMPC controller (i.e., G(s)). G(s) is essentially a new gain matrix with different cv units and mv units. Also loaded are the pre and post scale factors determined above, yielding a controller 10 configuration as shown in FIG. 1.

Although the above has been described in conjunction with the RMPC, it will be understood by those skilled in the art the technique of optimal scaling can be applied to any process controller.

While there has been shown what is considered the preferred embodiment of the present invention, it will be manifest that many changes and modifications can be made therein without departing from the essential spirit and scope of the invention. It is intended, therefore, in the annexed claims to cover all such changes and modifications which fall within the true scope of the invention.

Patent Citations

Cited Patent | Filing date | Publication date | Applicant | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|

US5347446 * | Feb 10, 1992 | Sep 13, 1994 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Model predictive control apparatus |

US5351184 * | Jan 26, 1993 | Sep 27, 1994 | Honeywell Inc. | Method of multivariable predictive control utilizing range control |

Referenced by

Citing Patent | Filing date | Publication date | Applicant | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|

US6094601 * | Oct 1, 1997 | Jul 25, 2000 | Digisonix, Inc. | Adaptive control system with efficiently constrained adaptation |

US6138049 * | Aug 22, 1997 | Oct 24, 2000 | Honeywell International Inc. | System and methods for generating and distributing alarm and event notifications |

US6240324 * | Jul 31, 1997 | May 29, 2001 | Honeywell International Inc. | Adaptive cascade control algorithm |

US6253113 | Aug 20, 1998 | Jun 26, 2001 | Honeywell International Inc | Controllers that determine optimal tuning parameters for use in process control systems and methods of operating the same |

US6347254 | Dec 31, 1998 | Feb 12, 2002 | Honeywell Inc | Process facility control systems using an efficient prediction form and methods of operating the same |

US6381505 | Mar 11, 1999 | Apr 30, 2002 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Robust steady-state target calculation for model predictive control |

US6542782 | Dec 31, 1998 | Apr 1, 2003 | Z. Joseph Lu | Systems for generating and using a lookup table with process facility control systems and models of the same, and methods of operating such systems |

US6701195 | Jun 15, 2001 | Mar 2, 2004 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | Sensor prediction system utilizing case based reasoning |

US6714899 | Mar 28, 2001 | Mar 30, 2004 | Aspen Technology, Inc. | Robust steady-state target calculation for model predictive control |

US6795798 | May 10, 2001 | Sep 21, 2004 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Remote analysis of process control plant data |

US6813532 | Feb 28, 2002 | Nov 2, 2004 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Creation and display of indices within a process plant |

US6915235 | Mar 13, 2003 | Jul 5, 2005 | Csi Technology, Inc. | Generation of data indicative of machine operational condition |

US6925338 | Feb 28, 2002 | Aug 2, 2005 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Fiducial technique for estimating and using degradation levels in a process plant |

US6954713 | Jan 10, 2002 | Oct 11, 2005 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Cavitation detection in a process plant |

US6965806 | Feb 28, 2002 | Nov 15, 2005 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc. | Automatic work order/parts order generation and tracking |

US6975219 | Jun 29, 2001 | Dec 13, 2005 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Enhanced hart device alerts in a process control system |

US7030747 | Feb 26, 2004 | Apr 18, 2006 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and system for integrated alarms in a process control system |

US7054706 | Jun 30, 2003 | May 30, 2006 | Intel Corporation | Managing supply chains with model predictive control |

US7079984 | Oct 22, 2004 | Jul 18, 2006 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Abnormal situation prevention in a process plant |

US7092856 | Oct 4, 2000 | Aug 15, 2006 | Yamatake Corporation | H-infinity controller design using control object models |

US7103427 | Feb 28, 2003 | Sep 5, 2006 | Fisher-Rosemont Systems, Inc. | Delivery of process plant notifications |

US7152072 | Jan 8, 2003 | Dec 19, 2006 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc. | Methods and apparatus for importing device data into a database system used in a process plant |

US7162534 | Jul 10, 2001 | Jan 9, 2007 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Transactional data communications for process control systems |

US7181654 | Sep 17, 2004 | Feb 20, 2007 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | System and method for detecting an abnormal situation associated with a reactor |

US7299415 | Jun 16, 2003 | Nov 20, 2007 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for providing help information in multiple formats |

US7330767 | Dec 5, 2002 | Feb 12, 2008 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Configuration and viewing display for an integrated model predictive control and optimizer function block |

US7337022 | Jun 19, 2003 | Feb 26, 2008 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Constraint and limit feasibility handling in a process control system optimizer |

US7376472 * | Sep 11, 2002 | May 20, 2008 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated model predictive control and optimization within a process control system |

US7389204 | Oct 22, 2004 | Jun 17, 2008 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Data presentation system for abnormal situation prevention in a process plant |

US7451004 | Sep 30, 2005 | Nov 11, 2008 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | On-line adaptive model predictive control in a process control system |

US7454253 | Mar 30, 2006 | Nov 18, 2008 | Honeywell Asca Inc. | Fast performance prediction of multivariable model predictive controller for paper machine cross-directional processes |

US7493310 | Mar 21, 2003 | Feb 17, 2009 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Data visualization within an integrated asset data system for a process plant |

US7515977 | Mar 30, 2004 | Apr 7, 2009 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated configuration system for use in a process plant |

US7536274 | Mar 14, 2005 | May 19, 2009 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | System and method for detecting an abnormal situation associated with a heater |

US7577483 | May 25, 2006 | Aug 18, 2009 | Honeywell Asca Inc. | Automatic tuning method for multivariable model predictive controllers |

US7600234 | Dec 10, 2002 | Oct 6, 2009 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method for launching applications |

US7634384 | Mar 18, 2003 | Dec 15, 2009 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Asset optimization reporting in a process plant |

US7650195 | Oct 27, 2005 | Jan 19, 2010 | Honeywell Asca Inc. | Automated tuning of large-scale multivariable model predictive controllers for spatially-distributed processes |

US7657399 | Jul 25, 2006 | Feb 2, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Methods and systems for detecting deviation of a process variable from expected values |

US7660701 | Jun 9, 2005 | Feb 9, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | System and method for detecting an abnormal situation associated with a process gain of a control loop |

US7676287 | Oct 22, 2004 | Mar 9, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Configuration system and method for abnormal situation prevention in a process plant |

US7702401 | Sep 5, 2007 | Apr 20, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | System for preserving and displaying process control data associated with an abnormal situation |

US7827006 | Jan 31, 2007 | Nov 2, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Heat exchanger fouling detection |

US7853339 | Sep 28, 2007 | Dec 14, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Statistical signatures used with multivariate analysis for steady-state detection in a process |

US7853431 | Mar 20, 2007 | Dec 14, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | On-line monitoring and diagnostics of a process using multivariate statistical analysis |

US7856281 | Nov 7, 2008 | Dec 21, 2010 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | On-line adaptive model predictive control in a process control system |

US7912676 | Jul 25, 2006 | Mar 22, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and system for detecting abnormal operation in a process plant |

US7917240 | Mar 20, 2007 | Mar 29, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Univariate method for monitoring and analysis of multivariate data |

US7937164 | Sep 28, 2007 | May 3, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Multivariate detection of abnormal conditions in a process plant |

US7953842 | Feb 19, 2003 | May 31, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Open network-based data acquisition, aggregation and optimization for use with process control systems |

US7957936 | Feb 11, 2008 | Jun 7, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Presentation system for abnormal situation prevention in a process plant |

US7966149 | Sep 28, 2007 | Jun 21, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Multivariate detection of transient regions in a process control system |

US8014880 | Mar 20, 2007 | Sep 6, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | On-line multivariate analysis in a distributed process control system |

US8032340 | Jan 4, 2007 | Oct 4, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and system for modeling a process variable in a process plant |

US8032341 | Jan 4, 2007 | Oct 4, 2011 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Modeling a process using a composite model comprising a plurality of regression models |

US8036758 | Apr 7, 2008 | Oct 11, 2011 | Honeywell International Inc. | System and method for continuous supply chain control and optimization using stochastic calculus of variations approach |

US8145358 | Jul 25, 2006 | Mar 27, 2012 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Method and system for detecting abnormal operation of a level regulatory control loop |

US8155932 | Jan 8, 2009 | Apr 10, 2012 | Jonas Berggren | Method and apparatus for creating a generalized response model for a sheet forming machine |

US8209045 | Apr 7, 2008 | Jun 26, 2012 | Honeywell International Inc. | System and method for discrete supply chain control and optimization using model predictive control |

US8209048 | Jan 12, 2009 | Jun 26, 2012 | Abb Automation Gmbh | Method and apparatus for creating a comprehensive response model for a sheet forming machine |

US8224476 | May 31, 2010 | Jul 17, 2012 | Honeywell Asca Inc. | Closed-loop monitoring and identification of CD alignment for papermaking processes |

US8489360 | Mar 20, 2007 | Jul 16, 2013 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Multivariate monitoring and diagnostics of process variable data |

US8606544 | Jul 25, 2006 | Dec 10, 2013 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Methods and systems for detecting deviation of a process variable from expected values |

US8620618 | Nov 25, 2009 | Dec 31, 2013 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Asset optimization reporting in a process plant |

US8762106 | Sep 28, 2007 | Jun 24, 2014 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Abnormal situation prevention in a heat exchanger |

US8935298 | Dec 30, 2002 | Jan 13, 2015 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Integrated navigational tree importation and generation in a process plant |

US9094470 | Nov 7, 2011 | Jul 28, 2015 | Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. | Web services-based communications for use with process control systems |

US20040267394 * | Jun 30, 2003 | Dec 30, 2004 | Karl Kempf | Managing supply chains with model predictive control |

US20050016704 * | Oct 18, 2002 | Jan 27, 2005 | Taisto Huhtelin | Method and apparatus for controlling the operation of stock preparation of a paper machine |

EP1014240A1 * | Dec 17, 1998 | Jun 28, 2000 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | A system of case-based reasoning for sensor prediction in a technical process, especially in a cement kiln, method and apparatus therefore |

WO2000036476A1 * | Dec 14, 1999 | Jun 22, 2000 | Michael Brown | A system of case-based reasoning for sensor prediction in a technical process, especially in a cement kiln, method and apparatus therefor |

WO2008134684A1 | Apr 30, 2008 | Nov 6, 2008 | Honeywell Int Inc | Apparatus and method for controlling product grade changes in a paper machine or other machine |

Classifications

U.S. Classification | 700/45, 700/33, 700/37 |

International Classification | G05B13/04, G05B13/02 |

Cooperative Classification | G05B13/048 |

European Classification | G05B13/04D |

Legal Events

Date | Code | Event | Description |
---|---|---|---|

Apr 3, 1995 | AS | Assignment | Owner name: HONEYWELL INC., MINNESOTA Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:LU, ZHUXIN JOSEPH;REEL/FRAME:007471/0345 Effective date: 19950323 |

Apr 28, 2000 | FPAY | Fee payment | Year of fee payment: 4 |

Mar 29, 2004 | FPAY | Fee payment | Year of fee payment: 8 |

Apr 17, 2008 | FPAY | Fee payment | Year of fee payment: 12 |

Rotate